Thursday, July 26, 2012

Needless to say, right-wing blogs ran with this and the left pretty much ignored it. But it is an important quote, and something to keep in mind as we inch ever closer to November. Today I'm going to do something that I try very hard to avoid. I'm going to take a step into the realm of conspiracy theory (hey, if it's good enough for a former cabinet-level advisor, it's good enough for me!) I generally try to stay away from those rabbit holes of circular logic and half-truths. I guess I just don't have that much paranoia in me. But there are a few - a very few - theories that have some weight to them, some merit. Sometimes it is possible to prove or disprove these theories over time. One such theory which is in the process of being proved and which I became acquainted with during the 2008 presidential election, involved something called the "Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Chaos".

This strategy, cooked up in the 1960's by Columbia University professors Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, is a plan to bring down our capitalist system by overwhelming it and causing it's collapse. What would they replace the capitalist system with? Why, a European-style cradle-to-grave nanny state, of course. A collapse would be the excuse needed to throw out the constitution and, as Obama himself said just days before his election, "fundamentally transform America".

Transition to socialism is usually achieved through revolution or war. We have neither on our shores, and the wars we fight half a world away don't cause the deprivations that triggered the socialization of Europe after the two world wars decimated that region. In the absence of those things, then, how is change brought about? By overwhelming our system in other ways.

Why is it important to talk about this theory now? Because, as President Obama says, he has implemented his plan, and it is working, right before our eyes:

The payroll tax he instituted and demanded stay in place means taxpayers are contributing 2% less to the Social Security trust fund each week. Which is already overwhelmed and expected to collapse by 2035. Surely this "tax holiday" the president put in place has something to do with the fact that we are now looking at running out of cash in 2016.

The senate has not done its constitutional duty in more than three years by refusing to pass - or even seriously consider - a budget. As a result, deficit spending has increased from a high under Bush of $410 billion to an average of $1.4 trillion under Obama. For the record, that's $1 trillion more per year than Bush the Profligate at his worst.

There is a determined push to get people on government assistance and entitlements, resulting in an unprecedented - and unsustainable - increase in participation. In addition, the absolute refusal by this administration to consider the effects their policies are having on job creation means unemployment has not gone below 8% in 41 months. Keeping people reliant on government instead of themselves has a twofold benefit for the president. First, the more dependents, the more indebted voters. Second, increased dependent participation and reduced taxpayer income create an unsustainable burden, hastening collapse.

The housing crisis was never really dealt with, aside from a few confusing, unpopular government programs that helped few and harmed many. But that isn't the problem with this issue. The real problem is that Attorney General Eric Holder's Department of Justice is actually forcing banks to do the very same things that helped cause the crisis in the first place by bringing down the power of the DoJ against any banks that refuse to lend to unqualified buyers.

One of the first things Pelosi and Obama did upon his rise to power was to revoke the main part of the Clinton-era welfare reform. The key to the reform - aside from the job training - was removing the incentive for states to add to their rolls. States are now being seduced by much-needed federal dollars to encourage citizens to jump on the dole.

A month later, Obama's HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, dealt the final death blow to the wildly successful welfare reforms of the 1990's, wiping out the other key to the reform - the work requirements that had effectively ended generational welfare. This now adds potential welfare collapse to the toxic entitlement brew threatening to bubble over.

The requirements for entitlements have been reduced so that more options are available to more people. In addition, active recruiting for candidates is going on, from the increased number and visibility of ads to parents being called by their children's schools to encourage them to apply for the lunch program. Selling foodstamps to seniors as if it was a great way to lose weight ("Margie looks amazing! What's her secret?") instead of a humiliating state of dependence in their golden years is particularly loathsome.

Entitlement requirement reduction has resulted in an historic 45 million Americans receiving food stamps (aka SNAP). This has not resulted in hand-wringing and promises to get people off the program and into jobs. If fact, the president hasn't really addressed the issue at all.

For two years, the democrats spent taxpayer money like it was their own private stash, doling out favors and riches to cronies and donors with very little check from republicans, who were so much in the minority that their input was neither requested nor desired.

Through executive fiat, regulation, and legislation, this administration has managed to make government a direct "partner" with the energy, health care, automotive and banking industries. Other sectors of the country are so crippled by the excessive regulation and looming taxation that they are unable to make forward progress. The result has been a "recovery" that is worse than the original recession.

At a time when we have been experiencing long-term unemployment and our workforce participation rate is at the lowest it's been in decades, the president just granted amnesty and offered our job market to upwards of a million new workers aged 18-35. Can't wait to see the impact that has on the job market.

Obama's amnesty is a double whammy. Not only will it increase our stubbornly high unemployment with the added competition for jobs, it also allows those former illegals access to our social safety nets - most notably unemployment benefits.

Obamacare was designed to increase the cost health insurance for companies while simultaniously offering a cheap "penalty" to not offer insurance at all. This is what will make Obamacare what Pelosi and company promised it wouldn't be - single payer. And just who is that single payer? Why, government, of course. When businesses start dropping coverage in favor of the cheaper penalty, their employees will be shunted into health insurance "exchanges" that will basically put people into Medicare or Medicaid instead of private insurance. After all, these two fine agencies are well in the black and can easily accommodate more citizens on their rolls. One-sixth of the economy will be under complete control of the federal government if we go to single payer. And, considering how well all of our other entitlements are doing, it's just a matter of time until Obamacare is teetering on the brink of collapse, too.

More than 20 million Americans out of work, and all we get from the administration is promises to "pivot" to the jobs issue. Eventually. Maybe in his second term?

It's not possible to look at all of these things and not start to wonder about what exactly the "plan" is. The result of these policies and actions has been the dismal "recovery" we have been treated to, massive deficits and mind-boggling debt. They are combining to create an unsustainable welfare state that that is doomed to collapse. What Obama is offering Americans is welfare writ large. Everyone is on the dole. Remember, Barack Obama is a genius. He knows what he's doing. That's what they keep telling us. He's ivy-league educated. He's brilliant.

So what did he study at those ivy-league colleges? Who did he hang out with? What ideas did he pursue? By his own admission, he espoused radicalism, even taking Piven's classes in his time at Columbia. He was immersed in it as a child, and even taught it later in life. He admitted in Dreams of My Father to not just hanging out with radicals and communists, but actively seeking them out - they are the ones he identified with most. As for the ideas he pursued, his career after college has been a tribute to Cloward-Piven, from his time as a community organizer to his church of twenty years to his membership in the socialist New Party to the people he has chosen as his administrative inner circle and the policy decisions they have made.

When President Obama said the jobs numbers were "a step in the right direction", he wasn't misspeaking. When he claimed his plan was working, that wasn't a gaffe. In order for Cloward-Piven to work, this three-year sustained crisis is exactly the right direction and the plan is unfolding exactly as envisioned. An expansive welfare state funded by a shackled economy and scapegoat one-percenters And if it isn't, it means the president and everyone in his administration, as well as former Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid, are utterly incompetent.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

In Sarah McLachlan's wonderful, double-platinum 2003 album Afterglow, she has a song called "World on Fire". It is a paean to left wing ideology, with one really standout line:

"The fortunes of one man means less for some"

This is the melodious summation of the democratic argument for reelection in 2012. It is most often illustrated with the pie analogy the left uses ad nauseum about eeevil rich guys taking huge pieces of the economic pie and only leaving thin little slivers for the rest of the proletariat to squabble over. (by the way, how much is Ms. McLachlan worth again? More than her sound tech, I bet)

When most world history has dictated that those in power allocate resources, it tends to be an acceptable world view. In order to to rationalize the deprivation and need that system imposes due to its participants' inevitable gluttonous greed, the theory develops that there just aren't enough resources to give to everyone. It makes a certain amount of sense.

But here in America, we have a different mentality. Or at least, we used to. In America, each and every one of us has the freedom to go out there and...well, make pies of our own. It's not for us to wait for government to hand out the piddling little slice they deem worthy. All government can do here is try to limit the size of your pie by, say, demanding the addition of an ingredient that doesn't exist yet or by burdening you with so many taxes that it's just not worth it to try to make a big pie. Instead you make a smaller one or use cheaper ingredients or, maybe, have fewer assistants in the shop.

The problem is, the Baker-in-Chief loves pie, and simply cannot resist dipping his fingers into as many as he can, effectively cornering the pastry market by forcing bakers to give more than half of their wares to him. The cronies and donors get first crack at the best ingredients now and when they burn their pies, he's always there with a fresh one for them, courtesy of the neighborhood housewives.

I find it quite fitting that a symbol of America is apple pie. Here in America, we don't squabble over crumbs, we make our own damn pie, thankyouverymuch.

Or at least, we used to. At one time, Susie Jones cooling a prize-winning deep dish caramel apple streusel on her windowsill would have inspired Betsy Smith to make her own mouth-watering creation. Nowadays, Betsy would call the town council and have Susie's pie removed, citing scent allergies, an aversion to the overt oppression of the patriotic reference to which apple pies allude and a feeling of social injustice and victimization because her oven did not spontaneously produce a pie when she demanded one. After rigorous investigation on the local, state and federal levels, Susie and her family are finally left alone to enjoy the forty-seven percent of the pie they are generously allowed to keep (the other fifty-three percent being redistributed to Betsy and other, hopefully more worthy, recipients) and the oven industry has strict new standards for mandatory spontaneous pie manifestation technology within the next decade. Naturally, a stiff penalty will be incurred if said technology is not implemented within the allotted time.

The biggest problem seems to be that it's not just a matter of fighting over crumbs anymore. More than half of us are telling our government that it's okay to go ahead and help themselves an enormous chunk of someone else's pie so we don't have to be bothered taking the risk of jumping the flaming hoops required for making our own. We've gone from "I want what you have so I'm going to go out and get it for myself" to "I want what you have so I'm going to take yours". It's a violation along the lines of what happened to that poor, innocent apple pie in the 1999 movie "American Pie". It is a defiling of our system, and the inevitable outcome will be stagnation and riots a la Paris and Athens. When only one pie is allowed, deprivation is sure to follow.

Which brings us to Mitt Romney. He understands that every man is his own baker, and should be able to make whatever size - and flavor - pie he (lawfully) chooses. He knows that there should be a few rules about baking, such as banning endangered animal meat pies, or using quality ingredients in a clean, safe environment so the consumer and the baker aren't injured. Such common sense rules and regulations are part and parcel of a well-run workplace. But government intrusion into every aspect of the baking process is not.

We really need to get Chef Obama and his inexperienced sous staff out of the kitchen and let the real drivers of the economy - the neighborhood bakers like you and me - get to work. Here's a hint, Chef - the ingredients you were left with aren't the problem, it's the recipe you insist on following. That particular souffle will fall every time, as it has in countless state-run kitchens across the globe.

It's time for government to get out of the kitchen and let the bakers bake again.
Read more...

Sunday, July 8, 2012

President Obama's campaign has rolled out yet another new campaign slogan on his new bus tour across the swing states of America. Nice touch, by the way, doing a tour to illustrate Obama's focus on American jobs (as opposed to Romney's illusory outsourcing) with a tour bus made in Canada. One can only imagine how hilarious that would be, if only it was George W. Bush at the wheel. Anyhoo, once again the President's brain stormers fall a bit short with the new campaign slogan:

Hmmmm....Is it really a good idea to encourage a mental link between the president, his agenda and gambling?

It is, of course, meant to give a sense of optimism; a feeling that ultimately America will live up to the president's vision The problem is, the American people are somewhat less than optimistic these days, and aren't necessarily interested in the America that is being envisioned for them.

The most glaring problem is that references to betting tend to bring to mind things like, say, the money gambled on Solyndra, Abound Solar, and many other "green" companies the Speculator-in-Chief bet taxpayer money on and lost. Instead of seeing the obvious - that the technology is not fully developed and (or should I say, because) the market isn't ready yet - he instead presses for further "investment" in green companies. After all, it's not like he's gambling with his own money, right? (and when he runs out of taxpayer chips, surely pit boss Hu will be happy to loan him another stack)

On a side note, that popular talking point about oil companies getting subsidies, so it's only "fair" (how I've come to hate that word) that green companies should too is complete bull. Oil companies do not receive taxpayer subsidies. They receive tax deductions, and that is a different animal entirely. The former requires the government to pay large (sometimes downright enormous) sums of taxpayer money to companies in order to fuel research and development. The latter allows companies to write off some of their costs, such as R&D, so they can retain more of their earnings to reinvest in the company and it's workforce, forking over less to Uncle Sam. Big difference.

References to placing bets may also make one think of the doubling down that has been done over the past few years by the gamblin' man with the keynesian plan. From the contraception "compromise" that is merely a one-year extension before the church must put aside their fundamental principles and join the collective to the repeated demands for more stimulus, it's been all about ignoring the critics, ignoring the people, ignoring the constitution, even ignoring common sense and sticking with his favorite theories. Freedom OF religion has become freedom FROM religion, so any infringement upon the church is now perversely perceived as a win for individual liberty. Granting a one-year waiver is not a compromise, it's a demand for compliance - just at a later date. As for the new calls for stimulus, he can call it a jobs bill all he wants, but it sure as heck sounds like a smaller version of Porkulus - the original "jobs" bill that has resulted in 8.2% unemployment two years after it was passed. And here we are again, with Mr. Bigstuff looking to buy friends and peddle influence with another hand-out to help profligate states pay for teachers, police and firefighters. But hey, we'll win next time, honest - our luck's just got to change! The problem isn't the policy, we just didn't bet enough!

That word, "Betting", might even bring to mind the shady numbers racket the media has been trying to swindle the American public with - from bogus polls to deceptive editing - in order to make the case for another term for the First Bookie. Speaking of working the numbers, did the president really think that the American public would buy that ridiculous, obscure left-wing blog post about Obama being the most frugal president since Eisenhower? Yeah, right. The largest deficit under Bush was $458 billion, the smallest under Obama has been $1.2 trillion. But he's frugal, whereas Bush was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Uh-huh.

It seems the overarching plea of the Obama campaign is for people to take a chance on him, once again. Let it ride, America, our luck will turn!

Perhaps on some deeper level, even Team Obama knows their failed and yet unaltered agenda is, at best, a crap shoot.